https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Richi, should the following test also vectorize?
--cut here--
typedef unsigned char v16qi __attribute__((vector_size (16)));
typedef unsigned int v4si __attribute__((vector_size (16)));
void
foo_u8_u32 (v4si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92152
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c3489a083b3d1f7085752045b99e429950c3906
commit r10-6913-g5c3489a083b3d1f7085752045b99e429950c3906
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92417
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91985
Bug 91985 depends on bug 92906, which changed state.
Bug 92906 Summary: [10 regression] FAIL: libstdc++-abi/abi_check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Henlich ---
Going back one step, I wonder if it would be good enough to perform a correctly
rounded conversion from degrees to radians, and just use sin() as is.
...
f = sgn * sin(deg2rad(arg))
end function f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems on x86_64-linux we also used to give the same code in 3.4.6 and earlier,
but starting already with 4.0 (already r9) we emit
cmpl%edx, %edi
movl$0, %eax
cmove %esi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93961
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92342
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried timing:
__attribute__((noipa)) int f(int a,int b, int c)
{
return a==c?b:0;
}
__attribute__((noipa)) int g(int a, int b, int c)
{
return b & -(a==c);
}
int
main (int argc, const char **argv)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93963
Bug ID: 93963
Summary: Select rank mishandling allocatable and pointer
arguments with bind(c)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93964
Bug ID: 93964
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] [graphite] ICE in
assign_parameter_index_in_region, at
graphite-scop-detection.c:1104
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately, it breaks miserably, e.g. miscompiles libcpp/macro.c.
Reduced testcase from that:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr93582.c.jj2020-02-28
12:27:51.280925113 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92656
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The is no simple solution, yeah. It may be possible to have a simple change
that results in better code on average, but that will be marginal :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92931
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Richi, should the following test also vectorize?
It doesn't vectorize because supportable_convert_operation returns false for:
(gdb) p debug_generic_expr (vectype_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47924|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
Bug ID: 93965
Summary: Problematic ld_date configure check
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 47928
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47928&action=edit
Test cases
sse4, avx2 and avx512bw test cases.
Fails:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr92658-avx2.c scan-assembler-times
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.sandiford at arm dot
com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Dunno, but wouldn't it be better to require either no -s or both, but not just
one?
So
sed -n
's,^.*\([2-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]\)\([-]*\)\([01][0-9]\)\2\([0-3][0-9]\).*$,\1\3\4,p'
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966
Bug ID: 93966
Summary: -fcf-protection -flto -g don't work togeter
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see the point of [-]* btw, could be just -* or maybe better -\? (though
not sure if that is portable enough).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93951
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume Morin ---
fwiw the reproducer can be reduced further to:
#include
struct S1 {
bool fct() const;
};
struct V {
bool visit() const {
auto visitor = [](auto&& s) -> bool { return s.fct(); };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93967
Bug ID: 93967
Summary: switch on exhaustive enum gives control reaches end of
non-void function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93968
Bug ID: 93968
Summary: -Wswitch-default on exhaustive enum class gives
warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93969
Bug ID: 93969
Summary: Static data member cannot be initialized in place, if
it is of a nested class type with a default argument
in its constructor.
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
--- Comment #3 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
Great! Looking forward to using polymorphic variables in more and more
applications and this problem had put a hold on that.
> On February 28, 2020 at 6:58 AM "pault at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87612
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Joel Hutton :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:349297b6e69c5af74ed26a333488b1bf994dbcce
commit r10-6918-g349297b6e69c5af74ed26a333488b1bf994dbcce
Author: Joel Hutton
Date: Fri Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #22 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Sebastian Pop from comment #21)
> It looks like this hunk from the trunk version of the patch is missing on
> gcc-9 branch:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/atomics.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/atomics.m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93745
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It would seem like C ought to be able to set the flag across the board. But
Richi would know best if this is going to run afoul of of the alias oracle
implementation & underlying gimple semantics.
I vague
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93966
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
I expect the problem is still there somewhere, but it's gone latent. There
haven't been any changes to *xxspltib__split since 2016. Will need to
look at gcc-9 branch to debug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Although perhaps we've done a better job of sorting out these flags since then.
Segher, anything ring a bell?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93564
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3ce088645e5305d932380c7520809181b2d2eb9
commit r10-6919-gf3ce088645e5305d932380c7520809181b2d2eb9
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08bf7bde9f2987b1c623d272cc71fc14a1622442
commit r10-6921-g08bf7bde9f2987b1c623d272cc71fc14a1622442
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93970
Bug ID: 93970
Summary: load via restricted pointer not eliminated after a
store via a restricted pointer of incompatible type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93971
Bug ID: 93971
Summary: C++ containers considered to alias declared objects of
incompatible types
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93751
--- Comment #14 from Alexey Neyman ---
Created attachment 47930
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47930&action=edit
Patch, v3
In gcc-patches, there have been three votes for generating external variables'
DIEs without an addit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93751
Alexey Neyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47930|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93965
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Liska
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9179ae6a0df27e3d3830ee42f755dc7d76cb0423
commit r9-8303-g9179ae6a0df27e3d3830ee42f755dc7d76cb0423
Author: Martin Liska
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93972
Bug ID: 93972
Summary: ranges::lexicographical_compare gives wrong answer for
signed integers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This code is unmodified since 2016, and we didn't change the flag handling
afair.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at cookiesoft dot de
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53479
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 93968 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93968
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93937
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab2f2e19111bfdd013697fdfd0cded5ab291a7a1
commit r10-6923-gab2f2e19111bfdd013697fdfd0cded5ab291a7a1
Author: Michael Meissner
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93972
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93973
Bug ID: 93973
Summary: Wrong constexpr copy/move assignment operator allowed
on non-literal type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Wonder if we can have an update on this?
TL;DR: there still seems to be a regression, but smaller and difficult to pin
down.
The benchmark often goes up and
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at debian dot org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20200228, on powerpc64le-linux-gnu, hardening flags and -fPIE
turned on by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, looks like the gimple has changed so we don't see the opportunity anymore
in GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93975
Bug ID: 93975
Summary: Wrong constexpr copy/move assignment operator allowed
on non-literal type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93751
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93975
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 93973 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93751
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #16)
> (In reply to Alexey Neyman from comment #14)
> > Created attachment 47930 [details]
> > Patch, v3
> >
> > In gcc-patches, there have been three votes for gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92692
--- Comment #23 from Sebastian Pop ---
> I don't see anything like that on the gcc-9 branch - are you sure you don't
> have an outstanding change somehow?
You are right, a part of the -moutline-atomics patch that I am working on
backporting to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53479
--- Comment #23 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
>
> Perhaps I should add an entry to the FAQ summarizing the above (anyone feel
> free to beat me to it...)
The "Commonly-reported Non-bugs" page would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92785
--- Comment #5 from Ev Drikos ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
> Committed as revision r10-6924-g7485ace81de9ec9dd5c87edf67e359d31ce35a20
>
> Paul
Hello Mr. P. Thomas,
With fortran-8.2, the test case prints 'FAILED' but exits with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |8.4
Summary|[9/10 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Caused PR93974.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93898
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually most likely this is a dup of bug 90432.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93971
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
If x is NaN, you cannot simplify x!=x to false.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #34 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 09:30:25AM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Going back one step, I wonder if it would be good enough
> to perform a correctly rounded conversion from degrees to
> radians,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93926
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I wouldn't be surprised if the biggest need for permissiveness is for configure
tests :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53479
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's at https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#enum_switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93967
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And see https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#enum_switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93823
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93968
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And see https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#enum_switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93823
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93707
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93976
Bug ID: 93976
Summary: Implement P2082R1, Fixing CTAD for aggregates
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93977
Bug ID: 93977
Summary: missing -Wrestrict with sprintf with same format as
destination
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #45 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #44)
> I suspect in the context where SRA creates the V_C_E we don't have enough
> information to know that the range of the input object is constrained
> enough. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93972
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce33801fe4c2272b31c64288b34c67a61529ce37
commit r10-6930-gce33801fe4c2272b31c64288b34c67a61529ce37
Author: Patrick Palka
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93972
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91890
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Another tidbit. It looks like the sprintf warning will at times ignore the
passed in location. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the right fix, but
if we make gimple-ssa-warn-restrict honor the passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91797
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93971
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|C++ containers considered |std::string considered to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
Bug 49774 depends on bug 93971, which changed state.
Bug 93971 Summary: std::string considered to alias declared objects of
incompatible types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93971
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93971
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #46 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #45)
>
> We SRA a bool field into a QItype variable and then think we need a VCE to
> get back to bool. Could the SRA variable have type bool?
A semi-wild guess, wo
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
